Advertising on television does not cause obesity. Advertising on television does not cause health problems. Eating badly causes these problems, not advertising.

Now I would like to discuss banning.

My first point is that banning something doesn't work. In fact it can have the opposite effect. My second point is that we can't escape advertising – advertising is everywhere.

Firstly, ladies and gentlemen, banning something does not work! In particular, banning the advertising of a product does not solve the problem.
My second point is that we cannot escape advertising. Children cannot escape advertising. Advertising is everywhere! Junk food advertising is everywhere.

Whenever I get into a car, I drive past McDonalds, the famous Great Golden Arches that symbolise an "m".

Advertising:nounThe activity of attracting public attention to a product or business, as by paid announcements in the print, broadcast, or electronic media. [2]

Band:nounA group of musicians playing together. [3]

Now, I can see clearly that Yoshi makes a lot of non-sequiturs. By discrediting critiques against junk food and advertising he thinks he can discredit any critiques made against junk food advertising being a good band name. I contend that this is not so.

The reputation of a phrase is certainly something to consider in choosing a band name. However, just because something doesn't have a bad rap doesn't mean that it has a good one. You also have to consider what sort of crowd your going for with your music. "Disemboweled organs" may not have a good rap, usually, but for a metal band it might be just right.

So the burden lays on my opponent to show just what group "Junk food advertising" might appeal to. Do you know any organizations that exist which have brought together like-minded obese, television-glued individuals to develop a musical culture?

The success of the sound of a band name is dependent upon general opinion. I contend that Junk food advertising is just not something most people could get around and say "Hey..ya know, that would make a real good band name!" No, you won't see that happening. It's purpose is confusing, vague at the least, void at the worst; it's length is obnoxious, which most do not appreciate; it's phonaesthetics is just plain dull and uncaptivating.

Band-naming is an art, my friend, and nothing--JUST NOTHING--is artsy about Junk food advertising. This makes it unfit to be a band name.

FREEDO has made pretty good points but I have made very convincing arguments but I have made much better arguments.

Firstly banning something will obviously not work and secondly banning food advertisers would make the company advertising the product lose money.

Now I will discuss banning.

Firstly banning something will obviously not work, advertising of cigarettes in Australia has been banned for so many years, yet people all around Australia continue to smoke.

Banning of junk food advertising was done in Sweden ---- years ago, yet statistics show no evidence in the reduction of childhood obesity or related illnesses.

Secondly banning food advertisers would make the company advertising the product lose money.
If the banning of advertising products happens all of the big companies will lose their money, for example Mcdonalds stores could go broke if this happens.

Eating badly causes health problems, not advertising.

To sum this argument up, Ladies and gentlemen, we do not need to ban the advertising of junk food.
I have demonstrated to you firstly that banning something does not work. In fact banning something often makes it more desirable.

I SEE THERE WAS A TERRIBLE MISUNDERSTANDING!! It appears that this debate is ACTUALLY about whether junk food advertising should BANNED, not band!!! Woe, was me!!--wasting a whole round on gibberish!!!

Now I can clearly see that my opponent's arguments are not non-sequiturs, in-fact, they are fool-proof!!--perfect!!--incapable of being dismantled!! He has made a beautiful case for why junk food advertising should not be banned!!

Not that I would want to refute any of his arguments, after-all, he made my own case for me. The resolution is that it should not be banned and my position in the debate is Pro.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro obviously was sarcastic, and knew that the resolution word 'band' was 'banned', though that costs him a point for conduct but gives him a point for spelling and grammar. Pro's arguments took advantage of that, and at least ensured a win for him.

Reasons for voting decision: No arguments on the negative, so I guess arguments needs to go to pro. "Band" was just silly as a spelling mistake. However, I felt the semantic argument was unfair. It was clear what con was talking about and pro's last round should have come out earlier. This costs pro conduct. Con should make sure they select the right side of the topic.

Reasons for voting decision: This was absolutely hilarious. I believe the CDT should go to Pro because even though Pro nitpicked, it was obvious that Con did not make a spelling mistake but rather deliberately tried to use an unconventional spelling seeing as how he said "band" twice. in short, it seems like Con is inviting his argument to be nitpicked. SG - tied, neither side made many mistakes."band" loses Pro cdt pts but not sg. ARG tied, both were arguing two completely different things. Sources - Only Pro provided any